Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description reinforces it by stating it opens nothing and only returns screens/buttons/fields. It adds useful context beyond annotations — REST API v8 exists but no official MCP server, admin must provision an OAuth2 client. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned guide in any detail, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the opening carries filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and the closing API sentence is verbose and oddly dated ('checked 23 Oct 2026'), spending space on tangential background. Readable but not tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a zero-parameter guide tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining that the return value is instructions and how the agent should act on them. A crisp statement of that output format (a textual guide) and any edition constraints would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies and no argument semantics are needed. The description's only parameter-adjacent addition is that the output is a step-by-step guide rather than an action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource and verb (log a call in the user's own SuiteCRM) and then clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions and 'opens nothing by itself.' That distinction lets an agent tell it apart from the actual browser actions in the sibling set, though the title 'Log call' still implies a write for a tool that only guides.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-on step: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's SuiteCRM Cloud Browser,' and explains why the API path isn't used (no official MCP server, OAuth2 client required). It stops short of saying when NOT to use it versus the other SuiteCRM record tools such as suitecrm_create_task or suitecrm_add_note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.